[Lnc-business] Historical Preservation Committee - Latest revision
Sam Goldstein
goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 19:43:51 EST 2017
I just sent a more reasonable version of the motion to the list.
Sam
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
Member at Large
8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
Indianapolis IN 46260
317-850-0726 Phone
317-582-1773 Fax
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I hear you Wes, and my goal is to have this out of your hair. Having a
> committee however does give legitimacy to the effort and will get then
> volunteers to assist who are serious and we would have Party
> accountability. Your simply proposed motion (I know you can't propose
> motions, perhaps suggested motion is the correct word) would get things
> moving but I do think it should include LPedia in some way. I will be
> speaking further with Ken about this off-list.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Staff isn't going to run LPedia. Don't have time. And don't want to be
>> involved in the fights over who gets to post what. Ken Moellman's working
>> to set up a new account with hosting so the good content can be moved there
>> so others can work on it. I almost paid the bill for it a couple hours ago
>> but ran into a temporary PayPal hiccup. But it'll get done soon.
>>
>> Staff will try to refuse to control LPedia. My intention is to give
>> control to Ken till he gets it moved, and then I expect either I or Ken
>> will give control to Caryn Ann and she can open up control to whomever
>> barring action from the Chair or LNC to change that (which I'd only expect
>> if Caryn Ann is doing something unacceptable).
>>
>> I think a great scenario is what will happen without a motion. A motion
>> (as it goes through the legislative process) is likely to muck up the great
>> scenario path we're already on. I've been helping you and Ken with this,
>> and that's without motions or even the chair telling me I have to do this.
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 1/12/2017 7:24 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> ==One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things started
>> was because as the committee got started working, it could answer some of
>> the implementation questions that would come up as work progressed.==
>>
>> This is definitely a good point. And the simply motion would get that
>> going, but it didn't address at all the running of LPedia which is a
>> concern and right now is in twilight zone. Staff certainly doesn't need
>> that on their hands.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not going to research all my email archives at the moment, but I
>>> believe at times the Chair of the Audit Committee has declared all emails
>>> to be "documents" in the context of also declaring all board members have
>>> the right to view all "documents." And staff has periodically provided
>>> batches of emails to the Audit Committee along those lines.
>>>
>>> I've usually written my emails with the assumption someone was snooping,
>>> someone would eventually request them via discovery etc, forward them to
>>> try to embarrass me, or they'd one day make it to the web, but not all the
>>> "documents" people have sent to me were written with that in mind. I've got
>>> some goodies. Having said that, let me think about it for a while, but
>>> there's a chance I'd be honored to have all my "documents" posted online,
>>> allowing the brilliance I've shared with individuals over the years to be
>>> enjoyed by the world.
>>>
>>> One of the reasons I suggested a simpler motion to get things started
>>> was because as the committee got started working, it could answer some of
>>> the implementation questions that would come up as work progressed.
>>> Definitions of "documents" could be better clarified. Perhaps requirements
>>> for "all" would get replaced with lists of priorities "we're starting with
>>> LP News, then Pledge News, the Press releases, number 29 on the priority
>>> list is Wes's brilliant emails to LNC-Business, followed by number 30,
>>> Wes's file cabinet.
>>>
>>> The item below gives me pause: "5. Vote on whether to recommend the
>>> destruction of any original document . . . "
>>>
>>> I doubt preserving and publishing every email I've ever written is the
>>> intent of the motion, but I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> I also get concerned because we are quite often involved in lawsuits
>>> where discovery requires the compilation of "all documents or emails that
>>> mention or are related to _______". In theory, I could spend ______
>>> months full time working on a discovery request, and for that reason, a
>>> discussion with legal counsel and the LNC about the pros and cons of
>>> document retention and duration is probably advisable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <%28202%29%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>
>>> On 1/12/2017 6:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, having LPedia up to snuff technically is of no use to us if we
>>> cannot "run" it. And we want to do that with little need to no need from
>>> staff. And the purpose in great part of LPedia is historical. Some of us
>>> on our own are collecting items ready to put up there. The 1972-1990 LP
>>> News will be available and old issues of the Liberty Pledge. I have other
>>> things being sent to me from multiple Party members very excited by the
>>> possibilities. This I also think will solve some of the "old website"
>>> consternation on the static pages - so that any archiving or transfer will
>>> not be simply static pages frozen in time.
>>>
>>> I have been doing a good deal behind the scenes with Party members.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The latest version of the HPC proposal is now updated in Google Docs
>>>> for review or suggestions. You can review this document here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15PTl9Ns-S7MwNs1Hwr
>>>> gTx8kqn-bXkJSsvrsXmpaYBhk/edit
>>>>
>>>> As Caryn Ann has mentioned, we are both open to other ideas. The new
>>>> LPedia solution is about to happen, from a technical standpoint, and as
>>>> such we need to get prepared for someone to actually maintain the solution.
>>>>
>>>> The current version of the original proposal reads as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proposal to create the Historic Preservation Committee, tasked with
>>>> preserving and publishing all historic documents of the Party.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the Policy
>>>> Manual, which reads (column name in italics): **(Committee name)*
>>>> Historic Preservation Committee
>>>> *(Size)* Two (2) LNC Members or Alternates, plus up to five (5)
>>>> additional LNC or non-LNC members.
>>>> *(Member Selection)* Two LNC Members or Alternates selected by LNC.
>>>> Other members selected by the committee, which shall be accepted unless
>>>> objected to by a majority of the LNC within 14 days of notification.
>>>> *(Chair Selection)* * Committee Selected
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual, which
>>>> reads: *x) Historic Preservation Committee
>>>>
>>>> The goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is to preserve historic
>>>> documents of the party. To that end, the committee shall:
>>>>
>>>> 1. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all
>>>> physical historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.
>>>> 2. With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all
>>>> public electronic records.
>>>> 3. With the assistance of the IT Committee and staff, provide and
>>>> maintain a permanent public document archive in the form of a
>>>> publicly-viewable website separate from the Party’s primary website. The
>>>> committee may permit volunteers to assist in the maintenance of this
>>>> website, provided that archived historichistroi documents are not removed.
>>>> 4. Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available
>>>> historic party documents, and transform physical documents into electronic
>>>> format toward that end.
>>>> 5. Vote on whether to recommend the destruction of any original
>>>> document, or document for which no other copy is available. No document
>>>> shall be destroyed without the consent of the LNC, as outlined in Section
>>>> 2.07(x).
>>>> 6. At each LNC meeting, present a summary of physical document
>>>> preservation mechanisms currently being utilized, and the number of
>>>> documents preserved in electronic format.
>>>> 7. Ensure that any non-public information, defined as information
>>>> covered under Section 1.02(5) and not known to have been made public by the
>>>> LNC, inadvertently released to the Committee is kept private. Any
>>>> electronic copy of non-public information shall be reported to the LNC and
>>>> deleted by the recipient(s). Any physical non-public information shall be
>>>> securely sealed, marked private, and returned for review by the LNC.
>>>> 8. Within one business day, inform the LNC of any committee
>>>> appointments.
>>>> 9. Publicly announce and permit a public audience for all meetings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing listed in the responsibilities, powers, or scope of this
>>>> Committee shall be construed to prevent or circumvent the normal operation
>>>> of the Party’s main website or to interfere in the duties of the Secretary
>>>> as mandated by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.07 of the Policy Manual, which
>>>> reads: *(x) All public agendas, meeting minutes, and records of the
>>>> Party shall be made available to the Historic Preservation Committee. No
>>>> data shall be deleted or destroyed without a vote in the affirmative by no
>>>> less than two-thirds of the entire LNC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-01-10 13:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We are going to have to deal with LPedia administration etc. sooner
>>>> rather than later.
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if we create a temporary committee outside the PM as a
>>>> test run and do it simple.
>>>>
>>>> That might help us know more what to craft for future.
>>>>
>>>> Ken (I believe- request his input) and I are open to simpler motions to
>>>> get started and such an initial ad hoc committee could advise the LNC of
>>>> specifics needed for a more permanent committee.
>>>>
>>>> I have some dedicated volunteers already. And I have been conferring
>>>> regularly with Chuck Moulton who has an intense interest.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this could relieve a lot of the tension had about lost
>>>> website data that is strictly historical like candidate list, past LNC
>>>> composition...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM Sam Goldstein <
>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wes,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an excellent motion and one I could sponsor and support with a
>>>>> few changes since it looks like
>>>>> Ms.Harlos would be Chair for Life in the current wording.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam Goldstein
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> Member at Large
>>>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>>>> 317-850-0726 <%28317%29%20850-0726> Phone
>>>>> 317-582-1773 <%28317%29%20582-1773> Fax
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Staff will do our best to fit in assistance on this project, if
>>>>>
>>>>> it passes, as we have been already.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps a better motion might be along the lines of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *"The LNC establishes a Historical Committee to help preserve and
>>>>> publish historical documents of the party and is granted a starting budget
>>>>> of $5,000. Caryn Ann Harlos is appointed chair with authority to appoint up
>>>>> to four others." *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Delete all that other stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I support the project in general, but will have to be cautious
>>>>>
>>>>> against spending too much staff time on it. But, I think I can
>>>>>
>>>>> work well with Caryn Ann on this, though not always helping as
>>>>>
>>>>> quick and fast as she would like.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize if I've overstepped my welcome on this topic by
>>>>>
>>>>> suggesting wording for a motion. I just hate to see the effort
>>>>>
>>>>> fail due to getting bogged down in unnecessary and unhelpful
>>>>>
>>>>> bureaucracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>>>
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>>>>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <%28202%29%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.org
>>>>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>>>
>>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/10/2017 10:38 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My copy/paste got mangled:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Joshua:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==My
>>>>>
>>>>> question is on the relation between 1 and 1a together, and
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. What, exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a? To
>>>>>
>>>>> give some examples: is there anything not being stored
>>>>>
>>>>> that the makers want to see stored? ==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are things not being
>>>>>
>>>>> made available or stored in a meaningful way we would like
>>>>>
>>>>> to see stored. For instance, we have all the copies of
>>>>>
>>>>> past press releases. What good are they doing in a file
>>>>>
>>>>> cabinet? So what we are doing now is storing them (either
>>>>>
>>>>> physically or electronically) but not preserving them in a
>>>>>
>>>>> meaningful way - meaning to be of use to members. And
>>>>>
>>>>> even the ones we have stored electronically (and this is
>>>>>
>>>>> one category, I could expand this further) have not been
>>>>>
>>>>> done reliably - i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that
>>>>>
>>>>> might be better suited on an LPedia interface. And this
>>>>>
>>>>> could happen again. This would insure a committee
>>>>>
>>>>> actually provides oversight and responsibility for making
>>>>>
>>>>> sure these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> discussion that is too remote to other things we have to
>>>>>
>>>>> discuss in our limited time. These records represent the
>>>>>
>>>>> tangible output that members paid money for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==So far as I know, there is
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing stopping volunteers from going into the basement
>>>>>
>>>>> and scanning things. At least, that's the impression I
>>>>>
>>>>> have from the fact that my colleague from Colorado, a
>>>>>
>>>>> stickler about rules, did so, with another volunteer
>>>>>
>>>>> member, and there was no suggestion of impropriety.
>>>>>
>>>>> What stops us from, without doing anything, having
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers do that?==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An
>>>>>
>>>>> organization to direct them in a meaningful way, and
>>>>>
>>>>> there is certainly something "official" about
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteering for an actual committee and having that
>>>>>
>>>>> organizational power and oversight. And volunteers can
>>>>>
>>>>> scan, go off merrily into their own files, and it isn't
>>>>>
>>>>> preserved for party members at large - which is
>>>>>
>>>>> something we have already committed to for years with
>>>>>
>>>>> LPedia, and done it poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==Which brings me to another
>>>>>
>>>>> question - what, exactly, will this committee decide?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the answer might be nothing, but I'm
>>>>>
>>>>> not sure on that.==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It
>>>>>
>>>>> will make decisions on things to insure are on LPedia
>>>>>
>>>>> and recommend destruction of preserved items if needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will decide on best practice for document
>>>>>
>>>>> preservation and best order of going about the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will also administer LPedia - so that staff will not
>>>>>
>>>>> have to worry about it. LPedia hopefully will grow into
>>>>>
>>>>> something that needs some dedicated management.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> == That is, it looks like it
>>>>>
>>>>> will not be an empowered committee, and will only make
>>>>>
>>>>> recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special rules of
>>>>>
>>>>> order that will make it easier for things to pass (but,
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest, might impact the vote threshold for this
>>>>>
>>>>> motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a bit more
>>>>>
>>>>> confusing - it might be good to have this motion amend
>>>>>
>>>>> the Special Rules of Order section of the Policy Manual
>>>>>
>>>>> as well, and leave the rules of order parts out of the
>>>>>
>>>>> committee description and scope). ==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To
>>>>>
>>>>> the second part, I would like to hear your suggestions
>>>>>
>>>>> on that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==Since it was posted, the scope
>>>>>
>>>>> of those recommendations has been narrowed somewhat (my
>>>>>
>>>>> understanding of the deleted line about expenditures
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to have been different from that of several others
>>>>>
>>>>> - I didn't see it giving the committee unlimited power
>>>>>
>>>>> to commit us to expenditures, but I did see it as oddly
>>>>>
>>>>> outside the budget process, as others have pointed out -
>>>>>
>>>>> I might prefer if a budget line were created for this
>>>>>
>>>>> purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs
>>>>>
>>>>> without going to the LNC within that line). ===
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It
>>>>>
>>>>> is removed with the potential for a budget line, if
>>>>>
>>>>> needed, but the first source would be to ask for
>>>>>
>>>>> voluntary donors just like volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to get into most
>>>>>
>>>>> of the other points raised at the moment, but I'll add
>>>>>
>>>>> that volunteer time is, of course, not totally fungible,
>>>>>
>>>>> but I suspect it is more fungible than we often think.==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In some areas perhaps, but I am
>>>>>
>>>>> pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast
>>>>>
>>>>> "community" and it isn't there. For instance I have
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these are
>>>>>
>>>>> not people volunteering to give full days for anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The website issues over two
>>>>>
>>>>> transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were
>>>>>
>>>>> botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it
>>>>>
>>>>> certainly looks like - we don't care about our history. Yet
>>>>>
>>>>> it is also understandable that this coming up at a quarterly
>>>>>
>>>>> meeting is frustrating amongst all the other business the
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC handles. This disposes of both and puts people who want
>>>>>
>>>>> to spend the time on this and deeply care about it - to
>>>>>
>>>>> handle it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Caryn
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that there
>>>>>
>>>>> are 3 (really 4, but see below) categories of
>>>>>
>>>>> tasks that matter here. They are:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Things we do now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a.Things that can be
>>>>>
>>>>> done now without a motion, but aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. What the makers of
>>>>>
>>>>> this motion intend to do that isn't done now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. What will be done as
>>>>>
>>>>> a result of this motion passing, in 10 years,
>>>>>
>>>>> when few of us are on the LNC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, we want 2 and
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 to be as close to identical as possible. I'm
>>>>>
>>>>> getting the sense from some of the discussion that
>>>>>
>>>>> they aren't, and I will try to make some suggestions
>>>>>
>>>>> on the document to bring them closer together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is on the
>>>>>
>>>>> relation between 1 and 1a together, and 2. What,
>>>>>
>>>>> exactly, is in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a? To give
>>>>>
>>>>> some examples: is there anything not being stored
>>>>>
>>>>> that the makers want to see stored?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are things not being
>>>>>
>>>>> made available or stored in a meaningful way we would
>>>>>
>>>>> like to see stored. For instance, we have all the
>>>>>
>>>>> copies of past press releases. What good are they
>>>>>
>>>>> doing in a file cabinet? So what we are doing now is
>>>>>
>>>>> storing them (either physically or electronically) but
>>>>>
>>>>> not preserving them in a meaningful way - meaning to
>>>>>
>>>>> be of use to members. And even the ones we have
>>>>>
>>>>> stored electronically (and this is one category, I
>>>>>
>>>>> could expand this further) have not been done reliably
>>>>>
>>>>> - i.e. the "lost" data on the websites that might be
>>>>>
>>>>> better suited on an LPedia interface. And this could
>>>>>
>>>>> happen again. This would insure a committee actually
>>>>>
>>>>> provides oversight and responsibility for making sure
>>>>>
>>>>> these things get done so it doesn't became an LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> discussion that is too remote to other things we have
>>>>>
>>>>> to discuss in our limited time. These records
>>>>>
>>>>> represent the tangible output that members paid money
>>>>>
>>>>> for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==So far as I know, there is
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing stopping volunteers from going into the
>>>>>
>>>>> basement and scanning things. At least, that's the
>>>>>
>>>>> impression I have from the fact that my colleague
>>>>>
>>>>> from Colorado, a stickler about rules, did so, with
>>>>>
>>>>> another volunteer member, and there was no
>>>>>
>>>>> suggestion of impropriety. What stops us from,
>>>>>
>>>>> without doing anything, having volunteers do that?==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An organization to direct
>>>>>
>>>>> them in a meaningful way, and there is certainly
>>>>>
>>>>> something "official" about volunteering for an
>>>>>
>>>>> actual committee and having that organizational
>>>>>
>>>>> power and oversight. And volunteers can scan, go
>>>>>
>>>>> off merrily into their own files, and it isn't
>>>>>
>>>>> preserved for party members at large - which is
>>>>>
>>>>> something we have already committed to for years
>>>>>
>>>>> with LPedia, and done it poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==Which brings me to another
>>>>>
>>>>> question - what, exactly, will this committee
>>>>>
>>>>> decide? It seems to me that the answer might be
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing, but I'm not sure on that.==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It will make decisions on
>>>>>
>>>>> things to insure are on LPedia and recommend
>>>>>
>>>>> destruction of preserved items if needed. It will
>>>>>
>>>>> decide on best practice for document preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> and best order of going about the project. It will
>>>>>
>>>>> also administer LPedia - so that staff will not have
>>>>>
>>>>> to worry about it. LPedia hopefully will grow into
>>>>>
>>>>> something that needs some dedicated management.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> == That is, it looks like it
>>>>>
>>>>> will not be an empowered committee, and will only
>>>>>
>>>>> make recommendations to the LNC, albeit with special
>>>>>
>>>>> rules of order that will make it easier for things
>>>>>
>>>>> to pass (but, I suggest, might impact the vote
>>>>>
>>>>> threshold for this motion, as well as make the
>>>>>
>>>>> Policy Manual a bit more confusing - it might be
>>>>>
>>>>> good to have this motion amend the Special Rules of
>>>>>
>>>>> Order section of the Policy Manual as well, and
>>>>>
>>>>> leave the rules of order parts out of the committee
>>>>>
>>>>> description and scope). ==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the second part, I would
>>>>>
>>>>> like to hear your suggestions on that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==Since it was posted, the
>>>>>
>>>>> scope of those recommendations has been narrowed
>>>>>
>>>>> somewhat (my understanding of the deleted line about
>>>>>
>>>>> expenditures seems to have been different from that
>>>>>
>>>>> of several others - I didn't see it giving the
>>>>>
>>>>> committee unlimited power to commit us to
>>>>>
>>>>> expenditures, but I did see it as oddly outside the
>>>>>
>>>>> budget process, as others have pointed out - I might
>>>>>
>>>>> prefer if a budget line were created for this
>>>>>
>>>>> purpose, and the committee just incurred the costs
>>>>>
>>>>> without going to the LNC within that line). ===
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is removed with the
>>>>>
>>>>> potential for a budget line, if needed, but the
>>>>>
>>>>> first source would be to ask for voluntary donors
>>>>>
>>>>> just like volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to get into
>>>>>
>>>>> most of the other points raised at the moment, but
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll add that volunteer time is, of course, not
>>>>>
>>>>> totally fungible, but I suspect it is more fungible
>>>>>
>>>>> than we often think.==
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In some areas perhaps, but I
>>>>>
>>>>> am pretty deeply entrenched in the LP History enthusiast
>>>>>
>>>>> "community" and it isn't there. For instance I have
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers ready to give full days in scanning - these
>>>>>
>>>>> are not people volunteering to give full days for
>>>>>
>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The website issues over two
>>>>>
>>>>> transitions (this pre-dated Ken, not a slam on Ken) were
>>>>>
>>>>> botched, and our members are pretty convinced, and it
>>>>>
>>>>> certainly looks like - we don't care about our history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet it is also understandable that this coming up at a
>>>>>
>>>>> quarterly meeting is frustrating amongst all the other
>>>>>
>>>>> business the LNC handles. This disposes of both and
>>>>>
>>>>> puts people who want to spend the time on this and
>>>>>
>>>>> deeply care about it - to handle it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at
>>>>>
>>>>> 7:35 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't decided how I will vote
>>>>>
>>>>> on this, and the debate here hasn't helped
>>>>>
>>>>> me. Let me revisit some of the comments I
>>>>>
>>>>> made on the document itself, but in a more
>>>>>
>>>>> inquisitive manner, and see if I can get some
>>>>>
>>>>> light on the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that there are 3 (really
>>>>>
>>>>> 4, but see below) categories of tasks that
>>>>>
>>>>> matter here. They are:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Things we do now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a.Things that can be done now without a
>>>>>
>>>>> motion, but aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. What the makers of this motion intend
>>>>>
>>>>> to do that isn't done now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. What will be done as a result of this
>>>>>
>>>>> motion passing, in 10 years, when few of us
>>>>>
>>>>> are on the LNC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, we want 2 and 3 to be as close
>>>>>
>>>>> to identical as possible. I'm getting the
>>>>>
>>>>> sense from some of the discussion that they
>>>>>
>>>>> aren't, and I will try to make some
>>>>>
>>>>> suggestions on the document to bring them
>>>>>
>>>>> closer together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is on the relation between 1
>>>>>
>>>>> and 1a together, and 2. What, exactly, is
>>>>>
>>>>> in 2 that is not in 1 or 1a? To give some
>>>>>
>>>>> examples: is there anything not being
>>>>>
>>>>> stored that the makers want to see stored?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So far as I know, there is nothing
>>>>>
>>>>> stopping volunteers from going into the
>>>>>
>>>>> basement and scanning things. At least,
>>>>>
>>>>> that's the impression I have from the fact
>>>>>
>>>>> that my colleague from Colorado, a stickler
>>>>>
>>>>> about rules, did so, with another volunteer
>>>>>
>>>>> member, and there was no suggestion of
>>>>>
>>>>> impropriety. What stops us from, without
>>>>>
>>>>> doing anything, having volunteers do that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which brings me to another question -
>>>>>
>>>>> what, exactly, will this committee decide?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the answer might be
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing, but I'm not sure on that. That is,
>>>>>
>>>>> it looks like it will not be an empowered
>>>>>
>>>>> committee, and will only make
>>>>>
>>>>> recommendations to the LNC, albeit with
>>>>>
>>>>> special rules of order that will make it
>>>>>
>>>>> easier for things to pass (but, I suggest,
>>>>>
>>>>> might impact the vote threshold for this
>>>>>
>>>>> motion, as well as make the Policy Manual a
>>>>>
>>>>> bit more confusing - it might be good to
>>>>>
>>>>> have this motion amend the Special Rules of
>>>>>
>>>>> Order section of the Policy Manual as well,
>>>>>
>>>>> and leave the rules of order parts out of
>>>>>
>>>>> the committee description and scope). Since
>>>>>
>>>>> it was posted, the scope of those
>>>>>
>>>>> recommendations has been narrowed somewhat
>>>>>
>>>>> (my understanding of the deleted line about
>>>>>
>>>>> expenditures seems to have been different
>>>>>
>>>>> from that of several others - I didn't see
>>>>>
>>>>> it giving the committee unlimited power to
>>>>>
>>>>> commit us to expenditures, but I did see it
>>>>>
>>>>> as oddly outside the budget process, as
>>>>>
>>>>> others have pointed out - I might prefer if
>>>>>
>>>>> a budget line were created for this purpose,
>>>>>
>>>>> and the committee just incurred the costs
>>>>>
>>>>> without going to the LNC within that line).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in sum, here is what I would like to
>>>>>
>>>>> know:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What, exactly, will this motion allow to
>>>>>
>>>>> happen, that cannot happen now?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is a committee needed for this
>>>>>
>>>>> purpose?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These questions are actually closely
>>>>>
>>>>> related, because they both get at why this
>>>>>
>>>>> is a committee, rather than a group of
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers doing work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to get into most of the
>>>>>
>>>>> other points raised at the moment, but I'll
>>>>>
>>>>> add that volunteer time is, of course, not
>>>>>
>>>>> totally fungible, but I suspect it is more
>>>>>
>>>>> fungible than we often think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am at a full screen
>>>>>
>>>>> computer now, and can get better
>>>>>
>>>>> address:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, maintain all physical
>>>>> historic information in a safe and climate controlled environment.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is already done. Decisions are already made - either explicitly
>>>>> or implicitly - about what is kept. This does not change that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *With the assistance of staff and the Secretary, collect all public
>>>>> electronic records.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is already done. When things are made public, they are either
>>>>> electronic or physical. They are already been saved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Make a good faith effort to preserve and publish all available
>>>>> historical party documents, and transform physical documents into
>>>>> electronic format toward that end.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Historical documents are not kept for mere utility reference, but for
>>>>> their historical value. We don't put out that much "publicly" and what is
>>>>> put out has a historical value in saving. Though this section could be
>>>>> tweaked to give greater discretion to the committee on items.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Make a good faith effort to preserve and, and within its discretion,
>>>>> to publish, all available historical party documents, and transform
>>>>> physical documents into electronic format toward that end.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would make the point of
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteer times. Their times is
>>>>>
>>>>> their to spend. There are
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers waiting to be
>>>>>
>>>>> involved. Their time is not
>>>>>
>>>>> fungible, people get involved in
>>>>>
>>>>> what they are passionate about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan 10, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Caryn
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alicia,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First I would ask if
>>>>>
>>>>> there is language you
>>>>>
>>>>> could suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As in the "all" - it is
>>>>>
>>>>> what we are doing now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing is being added.
>>>>>
>>>>> All records that are
>>>>>
>>>>> public records.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The committee is tasked
>>>>>
>>>>> with a good faith effort
>>>>>
>>>>> to publish them yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly everything being
>>>>>
>>>>> referred to will have been
>>>>>
>>>>> published previously -
>>>>>
>>>>> this is making the
>>>>>
>>>>> permanent archive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Top level history is
>>>>>
>>>>> subjective. The Wiki now
>>>>>
>>>>> is far from only top
>>>>>
>>>>> level- histories of some
>>>>>
>>>>> county parties are
>>>>>
>>>>> preserved if someone was
>>>>>
>>>>> interested in them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is useful is very
>>>>>
>>>>> much subjective. To those
>>>>>
>>>>> very interested in having
>>>>>
>>>>> a good complete record of
>>>>>
>>>>> our history, they are all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Volunteer time is like
>>>>>
>>>>> earmarked money. If a
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteer wants to give
>>>>>
>>>>> it- that is their choice,
>>>>>
>>>>> not ours on what we deem
>>>>>
>>>>> fruitful. I already know
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteers willing to be
>>>>>
>>>>> dedicated. There is a core
>>>>>
>>>>> of people interested in
>>>>>
>>>>> historical matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A treasure trove of
>>>>>
>>>>> records exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017 at 1:53 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> Alicia Mattson
>>>>>
>>>>> <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>> think the
>>>>>
>>>>> scope of this
>>>>>
>>>>> committee, as
>>>>>
>>>>> proposed, is
>>>>>
>>>>> so broad that
>>>>>
>>>>> it's a
>>>>>
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I really
>>>>>
>>>>> being asked to
>>>>>
>>>>> be partially
>>>>>
>>>>> responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> for preserving
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL
>>>>>
>>>>> physical
>>>>>
>>>>> historic
>>>>>
>>>>> information
>>>>>
>>>>> (in #1), and
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL public
>>>>>
>>>>> electronic
>>>>>
>>>>> records (in
>>>>>
>>>>> #2)? And the
>>>>>
>>>>> committee is
>>>>>
>>>>> additionally
>>>>>
>>>>> tasked with
>>>>>
>>>>> publishing ALL
>>>>>
>>>>> historical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents (in
>>>>>
>>>>> #4)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "All"
>>>>>
>>>>> is an awfully
>>>>>
>>>>> large amount
>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>> information,
>>>>>
>>>>> and it means
>>>>>
>>>>> there would
>>>>>
>>>>> never be
>>>>>
>>>>> anything
>>>>>
>>>>> deemed
>>>>>
>>>>> inappropriate
>>>>>
>>>>> for inclusion
>>>>>
>>>>> because it
>>>>>
>>>>> says "all".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>> thought this
>>>>>
>>>>> was just going
>>>>>
>>>>> to be some
>>>>>
>>>>> top-level
>>>>>
>>>>> history like
>>>>>
>>>>> whatever is on
>>>>>
>>>>> the wiki right
>>>>>
>>>>> now, but this
>>>>>
>>>>> proposal is a
>>>>>
>>>>> massive
>>>>>
>>>>> expansion in
>>>>>
>>>>> scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some
>>>>>
>>>>> historical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents are
>>>>>
>>>>> useful to keep
>>>>>
>>>>> around for
>>>>>
>>>>> reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others just
>>>>>
>>>>> aren't, so why
>>>>>
>>>>> spend time
>>>>>
>>>>> preserving ALL
>>>>>
>>>>> of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are
>>>>>
>>>>> we going to
>>>>>
>>>>> spend our
>>>>>
>>>>> limited
>>>>>
>>>>> volunteer time
>>>>>
>>>>> and effort
>>>>>
>>>>> documenting
>>>>>
>>>>> the past, or
>>>>>
>>>>> are we going
>>>>>
>>>>> to instead
>>>>>
>>>>> focus on how
>>>>>
>>>>> to make our
>>>>>
>>>>> future efforts
>>>>>
>>>>> have more
>>>>>
>>>>> real-world
>>>>>
>>>>> results?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On
>>>>>
>>>>> Sun, Jan 8,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017 at 5:56
>>>>>
>>>>> PM, Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>> following is a
>>>>>
>>>>> motion seeking
>>>>>
>>>>> a sponsor and
>>>>>
>>>>> co-sponsors, to
>>>>>
>>>>> create the
>>>>>
>>>>> Historic
>>>>>
>>>>> Preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee,
>>>>>
>>>>> tasked with
>>>>>
>>>>> preserving and
>>>>>
>>>>> publishing all
>>>>>
>>>>> historical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents of
>>>>>
>>>>> the Party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Add a line item to chart in subsection 1 of section 1.03 of the
>>>>> Policy Manual, which reads (column name in italics): *
>>>>>
>>>>> *(Committee name)*
>>>>>
>>>>> Historic
>>>>>
>>>>> Preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *(Size)*
>>>>>
>>>>> Two
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> Members or
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternates,
>>>>>
>>>>> plus up to
>>>>>
>>>>> five (5)
>>>>>
>>>>> non-LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> members.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *(Member Selection)*
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> Members or
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternates
>>>>>
>>>>> selected by
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC. Non-LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> members
>>>>>
>>>>> selected by
>>>>>
>>>>> the committee,
>>>>>
>>>>> which shall be
>>>>>
>>>>> accepted
>>>>>
>>>>> unless
>>>>>
>>>>> objected to by
>>>>>
>>>>> a majority of
>>>>>
>>>>> the LNC within
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 days of
>>>>>
>>>>> notification.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *(Chair Selection)*
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee
>>>>>
>>>>> Selected
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Create a new subsection under section 2.02 of the Policy Manual,
>>>>> which reads: *x)
>>>>>
>>>>> Historic
>>>>>
>>>>> Preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>> goal of the
>>>>>
>>>>> Historic
>>>>>
>>>>> Preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee is
>>>>>
>>>>> to preserve
>>>>>
>>>>> historical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents of
>>>>>
>>>>> the party. To
>>>>>
>>>>> that end, the
>>>>>
>>>>> committee
>>>>>
>>>>> shall:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the
>>>>>
>>>>> assistance of
>>>>>
>>>>> staff and the
>>>>>
>>>>> Secretary,
>>>>>
>>>>> maintain all
>>>>>
>>>>> physical
>>>>>
>>>>> historic
>>>>>
>>>>> information in
>>>>>
>>>>> a safe and
>>>>>
>>>>> climate
>>>>>
>>>>> controlled
>>>>>
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any costs for
>>>>>
>>>>> document
>>>>>
>>>>> storage shall
>>>>>
>>>>> be presented
>>>>>
>>>>> to the LNC and
>>>>>
>>>>> shall be
>>>>>
>>>>> accepted
>>>>>
>>>>> unless
>>>>>
>>>>> objected to by
>>>>>
>>>>> the majority
>>>>>
>>>>> of the entire
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC within 14
>>>>>
>>>>> days.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the
>>>>>
>>>>> assistance of
>>>>>
>>>>> staff and the
>>>>>
>>>>> Secretary,
>>>>>
>>>>> collect all
>>>>>
>>>>> public
>>>>>
>>>>> electronic
>>>>>
>>>>> records.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the
>>>>>
>>>>> assistance of
>>>>>
>>>>> the IT
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee and
>>>>>
>>>>> staff, provide
>>>>>
>>>>> and maintain a
>>>>>
>>>>> permanent
>>>>>
>>>>> public
>>>>>
>>>>> document
>>>>>
>>>>> archive in the
>>>>>
>>>>> form of a
>>>>>
>>>>> publicly-viewable
>>>>>
>>>>> website which
>>>>>
>>>>> is separate
>>>>>
>>>>> from the
>>>>>
>>>>> Party's
>>>>>
>>>>> primary
>>>>>
>>>>> website.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make a good
>>>>>
>>>>> faith effort
>>>>>
>>>>> to preserve
>>>>>
>>>>> and publish
>>>>>
>>>>> all historical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents, and
>>>>>
>>>>> transform
>>>>>
>>>>> physical
>>>>>
>>>>> documents into
>>>>>
>>>>> electronic
>>>>>
>>>>> format toward
>>>>>
>>>>> that end.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote to
>>>>>
>>>>> recommend the
>>>>>
>>>>> destruction of
>>>>>
>>>>> any original
>>>>>
>>>>> document, or
>>>>>
>>>>> document for
>>>>>
>>>>> which no other
>>>>>
>>>>> copy is
>>>>>
>>>>> available. No
>>>>>
>>>>> such document
>>>>>
>>>>> shall be
>>>>>
>>>>> destroyed
>>>>>
>>>>> without the
>>>>>
>>>>> consent of the
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC, as
>>>>>
>>>>> outlined in
>>>>>
>>>>> Section
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.07(x).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> At each LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> meeting,
>>>>>
>>>>> present a
>>>>>
>>>>> summary of
>>>>>
>>>>> physical
>>>>>
>>>>> document
>>>>>
>>>>> preservation
>>>>>
>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>>
>>>>> currently
>>>>>
>>>>> being
>>>>>
>>>>> utilized, and
>>>>>
>>>>> the number of
>>>>>
>>>>> documents
>>>>>
>>>>> preserved in
>>>>>
>>>>> electronic
>>>>>
>>>>> format.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ensure that
>>>>>
>>>>> any document
>>>>>
>>>>> that would
>>>>>
>>>>> qualify for
>>>>>
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> under the
>>>>>
>>>>> rules of
>>>>>
>>>>> executive
>>>>>
>>>>> session for
>>>>>
>>>>> the LNC, as
>>>>>
>>>>> outlined under
>>>>>
>>>>> Section
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.02(5),
>>>>>
>>>>> remains
>>>>>
>>>>> private until
>>>>>
>>>>> such time that
>>>>>
>>>>> the Executive
>>>>>
>>>>> Committee, or
>>>>>
>>>>> the entire
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC, meeting
>>>>>
>>>>> in executive
>>>>>
>>>>> session, votes
>>>>>
>>>>> in the
>>>>>
>>>>> affirmative to
>>>>>
>>>>> make that
>>>>>
>>>>> information
>>>>>
>>>>> public.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> Within one
>>>>>
>>>>> business day,
>>>>>
>>>>> inform the LNC
>>>>>
>>>>> of any
>>>>>
>>>>> committee
>>>>>
>>>>> appointments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.
>>>>>
>>>>> Publicly
>>>>>
>>>>> announce and
>>>>>
>>>>> permit a
>>>>>
>>>>> public
>>>>>
>>>>> audience for
>>>>>
>>>>> all meetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> other than
>>>>>
>>>>> those meetings
>>>>>
>>>>> held for the
>>>>>
>>>>> explicit
>>>>>
>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>
>>>>> discussing
>>>>>
>>>>> historic items
>>>>>
>>>>> that would
>>>>>
>>>>> qualify for
>>>>>
>>>>> Executive
>>>>>
>>>>> Session.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing
>>>>>
>>>>> listed in the
>>>>>
>>>>> responsibilities, powers, or scope of this Committee shall be construed
>>>>>
>>>>> to prevent or
>>>>>
>>>>> circumvent the
>>>>>
>>>>> normal
>>>>>
>>>>> operation of
>>>>>
>>>>> the Party's
>>>>>
>>>>> main website
>>>>>
>>>>> or to
>>>>>
>>>>> interfere in
>>>>>
>>>>> the duties of
>>>>>
>>>>> the Secretary
>>>>>
>>>>> as mandated by
>>>>>
>>>>> the Party
>>>>>
>>>>> Bylaws or this
>>>>>
>>>>> Policy Manual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Create a new subsection *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing
>>> list Lnc-business at hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
>>> nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170112/a025303c/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list